Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
being pro life outside the political arena
Topic Started: Nov 12 2008, 06:24 AM (4,741 Views)
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
John D'Oh
 
Trying to ban IVF on the grounds of being 'pro-life' is more than a tad ironic. The whole purpose of the procedure is to allow human beings to reproduce who would otherwise not be able to.


Providing no zygote or bastocyst gets left behind, I see no reason the pro-lifers couldn't get behind it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Nov 14 2008, 08:05 PM
ivorythumper
Nov 14 2008, 07:47 PM
AlbertaCrude
Nov 14 2008, 07:44 PM
So what makes a zygote so special that it should be accorded full human rights?
Nothing, unless it happens to be a human zygote. Dog zygotes I really don't care about, but I suppose they should have all the rights given to other dogs.
So I take it you are not averse to A.I or IVF in species other than homo sapiens. How do propose to regulate the practice among humans where zygotes and blastocysts are at risk of being....selected?
I am not morally adverse to IVF, though I realize I am off the rez on that. As you note, provided no one gets left behind... and I think that is a significant moral issue. if you're going to make a baby, whether naturally or in a dish, I think you have a moral responsibility to give the lil' feller a chance a grow and a responsibility to raise him.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Nov 14 2008, 08:12 PM
Trying to ban IVF on the grounds of being 'pro-life' is more than a tad ironic. The whole purpose of the procedure is to allow human beings to reproduce who would otherwise not be able to.
Nothing ironic about it. The problem is that often many more eggs are fertilized and then discarded. Morally that is problematic.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
I disagree. You only have the moral responsibility to grow and raise the lil' feller if mama gets pregnant. Unless you accept that some may not make it out of the petri dish before implantation, don't embark down that road in the first place. At the same time if you cannot accept that reality, don't petition to have another person's right to take that path to parenthood revoked either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
JBryan
 
Your [Moonbat's] statement that there are those who would not be born as a result of abortion not being available is not. Prove it.
Dude, think China - it shouldn't be too hard to find little boys there who would not have been born had their parents not aborted (or abandoned) their big sisters.

To go around your mental block, replace "abortion" with "miscarriage."

It's not uncommon that a man has vasectomy or a woman has tubaligation after they have given birth to some pre-determined number of children. If a couple is determined to have three children, they will keep trying until they have three children (or until their biological clocks run out or decide to adopt). If, after child #1 and child #2, pregnancy #3 ends up miscarried, then pregnancy #4 ends up producing child #3. Child #3 is the child that would not have come to be had pregnancy #3 not miscarried.

Now replace "miscarriage" with "abortion":

It's not uncommon that a man has vasectomy or a woman has tubaligation after they have given birth to some pre-determined number of children. If a couple is determined to have three children, they will keep trying until they have three children (or until their biological clocks run out or decide to adopt). If, after child #1 and child #2, pregnancy #3 is aborted, then pregnancy #4 ends up producing child #3. Child #3 is the child that would not have come to be had pregnancy #3 not been aborted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
 
Daddy always told me that if I was man enough to make a baby, I was man enough to take care of one...
What does Mr. Jolly Sr. think about sperm banks' sperm donors?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CTPianotech
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Nov 14 2008, 07:57 PM
Dewey
Nov 14 2008, 07:17 PM
Quote:
 
If a strategy isn't working, why keep pursuing it?


Because it isn't a strategy, it's a moral value. A moral value remains constant regardless of whether a majority of people follow it.

So claiming moral superiority over those with differing views is more important than reducing the number of abortions?

Isn't one of the most important part of becoming an adult human being learning to work constructively with people who have different beliefs to one's own?
What are you saying Pro-life groups should be doing that they aren't doing?

Does 'work constructively' mean that we must no longer hold the value, or simply no longer tell anyone about it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
CTPianotech
Nov 14 2008, 08:52 PM
John D'Oh
Nov 14 2008, 07:57 PM
Dewey
Nov 14 2008, 07:17 PM
Quote:
 
If a strategy isn't working, why keep pursuing it?


Because it isn't a strategy, it's a moral value. A moral value remains constant regardless of whether a majority of people follow it.

So claiming moral superiority over those with differing views is more important than reducing the number of abortions?

Isn't one of the most important part of becoming an adult human being learning to work constructively with people who have different beliefs to one's own?
What are you saying Pro-life groups should be doing that they aren't doing?
Compromise.

Like I said in my first post in this thread:

Axtremus
 
The pro-life people simply have to accept that there are cases where abortion is the correct, proper, and moral course of action.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CTPianotech
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
OK... how does that lead to fewer abortions overall?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Nov 14 2008, 08:32 PM
I disagree. You only have the moral responsibility to grow and raise the lil' feller if mama gets pregnant. Unless you accept that some may not make it out of the petri dish before implantation, don't embark down that road in the first place. At the same time if you cannot accept that reality, don't petition to have another person's right to take that path to parenthood revoked either.
Why not implant the human beings that are produced outside the womb? I see no valid grounds for saying that location determines morality. That is the same argument that a baby 10 seconds before birth can be killed with impunity, but 10 seconds after birth it is homicide.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Nov 14 2008, 08:54 PM
Compromise.

Like I said in my first post in this thread:

Axtremus
 
The pro-life people simply have to accept that there are cases where abortion is the correct, proper, and moral course of action.
No one has to accept anything just because you or anyone else says so.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Instead of spending resources fighting for a principle, the pro-life groups can spend resources working to get results. Don't get hung up on "absolute principle," focus on results.

Spending $$$ lobbying and suing to outlaw abortions won't necessarily reduce the number of abortions for the simple reason that "outlawing abortion" is not the same as "reducing abortion" -- there's always the "coat hanger in the back alley" option and the "abort overseas" option. But spending the same $$$ to reduce abortion, well, that's a direct application of resources towards the goal of reducing abortions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
IvoryThumper
 
Why not implant the human beings that are produced outside the womb? I see no valid grounds for saying that location determines morality. That is the same argument that a baby 10 seconds before birth can be killed with impunity, but 10 seconds after birth it is homicide.


I was discussing zygotes within 48 to 72 hours of fertilization/conception not third trimester fetuses. Some women produce a lot of eggs, others do not. Men produce sperm of varying quality and amounts. What is produced for IVF is clincally selected. As such, some fertilized eggs are implanted and others are not. Criteria for implantation selection is clinical not moral. I see no problem provided all parties to the procedure understand the implications and accept consequences. It's really only a matter between the partcipating would-be parents and the presiding physician(s) and clinicians.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Nov 14 2008, 09:13 PM
Instead of spending resources fighting for a principle, the pro-life groups can spend resources working to get results. Don't get hung up on "absolute principle," focus on results.

Spending $$$ lobbying and suing to outlaw abortions won't necessarily reduce the number of abortions for the simple reason that "outlawing abortion" is not the same as "reducing abortion" -- there's always the "coat hanger in the back alley" option and the "abort overseas" option. But spending the same $$$ to reduce abortion, well, that's a direct application of resources towards the goal of reducing abortions.
As far as I can tell the pro-life efforts today are mostly educational, supportive, adoptive, and consciousness raising. It goes without saying that legislation and judicial appointment are part of the overall strategy (which does involve lobbying), but ultimately it is a matter of a battle for the hearts and minds, and giving women solid options to abortion such as safe harbor laws (which the radical proborts still despise) and adoption.

Where do you think they should money be spent to reduce abortions other than what they are doing now? (In fact, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute under the Bush administration abortion has drop quite a bit back to early to mid 70s figures - still 1.3 million a year is a blood bath).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Nov 14 2008, 09:19 PM
IvoryThumper
 
Why not implant the human beings that are produced outside the womb? I see no valid grounds for saying that location determines morality. That is the same argument that a baby 10 seconds before birth can be killed with impunity, but 10 seconds after birth it is homicide.


I was discussing zygotes within 48 to 72 hours of fertilization/conception not third trimester fetuses. Some women produce a lot of eggs, others do not. Men produce sperm of varying quality and amounts. What is produced for IVF is clincally selected. As such, some fertilized eggs are implanted and others are not. Criteria for implantation selection is clinical not moral. I see no problem provided all parties to the procedure understand the implications and accept consequences. It's really only a matter between the partcipating would-be parents and the presiding physician(s) and clinicians.
That would make sense if it didn't involve another human being. There wouldn't be a moral question if it didn't involve another human being.

Eggs don't have to be fertilized after harvesting. But once they are, there is another human being involved.

Calling something "clinical" does not automatically remove ethical or moral import.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
I never said it does remove the moral or ethical import. The ethical and moral implications are dealt prior to a couple's decision whether to go ahead with IVF or not. From there on it is clinical and no one's business other than the presiding physician and the would be parents.

From what I can see the pro-life movement is pretty much together on the issue of elective abortion (albeit with some notable exceptions in the case of rape and incest- with which I happen to agree with). I however do not see the same consensus or unequivocal condemnation in that same interest group over the practice of IVF. Perhaps this is one instance when utility trumps natural law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I have no idea what you mean by any of that first paragraph. Either the action X is moral or it is not. It makes no sense to say the moral and ethical implications are dealt with prior to X and once X is determined as the course of action that it no longer has moral implications.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
You know very well what I am saying. In this country at least, people do not undertake the IVF procedure without extensive prior medical and psychological consultation and assessment during which all these ethical and moral issues are discussed. I assume it is the same in the USA.

Face it IT, we are at two opposite ends of the gridiron on this issue. I will not compromise with you and I don't expect you to compromise with me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ive stayed out of this...most know my thinking on this...but no i have no desire to get involved.

but its weird, i live in a country where the following issues have been reasons that governments almost or did fall...

religious opposition to daylight savings time...
the kosherness of white house dinners..
the time that F-16's delivered from america landed after sundown on a friday...etc...u get the point.

but never, never has abortion been a red button issue here...because here we have precisely that formula of...grey as opposed to black and white.

but i will not, absoloutely not, join the discussion here. been there, did that.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I had no idea that was how you did it. I think here anyone with $10K can do it.

It still doesn't address why every egg has to be fertilized and not only eggs to be implanted are fertilized.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
No, here you have to go through an rather extensive three day consultation process before you pay out of pocket (not covered by the g'ovt health care plan) for IVF. If accepted you then book about two weeks holidays for the procedure.

Quote:
 
It still doesn't address why every egg has to be fertilized and not only eggs to be implanted are fertilized.


Why are you asking me this? Ask a specialist physician about how it's done.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

No, what I am saying is that you have not proven your statement. Mine requires no proof. That there are people who have not been born as a result of abortion is self-evident. Your statement that there are those who would not be born as a result of abortion not being available is not. Prove it. Otherwise we can speculate about pink unicorns or flying monkeys or whatever else but it does not get you where you want to be: the two arguments are not equivalent.


Either it's proved or it's speculation?

Well then i guess by your definition it's speculation then. Here's some more speculation: if i dropped an anvil off the empire state building it wouldn't fly into the sky and spell out "this is impossibly improbable" in bright blue letters - I can't prove that so it's speculation according to your definition. It's also speculation to state that a human has never given birth to a cow. Can't prove it so by your definition it counts as speculation. (Infact if you use that terminology all statements made on the basis of empirical science become speculation because none of those statements can be proved).

Both of my outlandish scenarios above are possible i.e. there's a non zero probability of the anvil flying into the sky and writing out messages and there is a non zero probability of a human giving birth to a cow - it's just that those probabilities are impossibly small, if you wanted a decent chance of seeing such events you would have to wait far longer than the lifetime of the universe.

Realistically the claim that there are people around today who would not be were a decision to terminate a previous pregnancy not made is an undeniable.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
CTPianotech
Nov 14 2008, 08:52 PM
John D'Oh
Nov 14 2008, 07:57 PM
Dewey
Nov 14 2008, 07:17 PM
Quote:
 
If a strategy isn't working, why keep pursuing it?


Because it isn't a strategy, it's a moral value. A moral value remains constant regardless of whether a majority of people follow it.

So claiming moral superiority over those with differing views is more important than reducing the number of abortions?

Isn't one of the most important part of becoming an adult human being learning to work constructively with people who have different beliefs to one's own?
What are you saying Pro-life groups should be doing that they aren't doing?

Does 'work constructively' mean that we must no longer hold the value, or simply no longer tell anyone about it?
Read Apple's original post.

Firstly, I think you need to re-examine your expectations of what you can achieve. The root cause of the problem isn't actually abortion, but unwanted pregnancy. If you can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies then you automatically reduce the number of abortions. I'm pretty sure that the US has significantly more unwanted pregnancies per capita than other Western countries.

Secondly, stop being so freaking preachy and shrill. Nobody wants to work with someone who shouts at them the whole time. Try and understand the other person's viewpoint without using terms such as 'mass-murder', 'holocaust', 'evil'. These are not particularly constructive terms.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I'm pretty sure that the US has significantly more unwanted pregnancies per capita than other Western countries.



yup.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita

oh and pretty cool web site...

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Nov 13 2008, 06:35 AM
You should be glad I didn't mention coveting your neighbour's ass.
You betcha.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply